Goodbye, Michele, you saved your traitorous side until you decided to leave. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition from now on.

createVisionsOfLoveMichelle dear, you surprised me. At least now we know your allegiance is
not to the American people nor to﻿ the US Constitution. Thanks for the
clarification.

**********************************

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) let it be known loud and clear which side
of the "hero" vs. "traitor" debate she falls on when it comes to NSA
leaker Edward Snowden. During her questions to NSA Director Gen. Keith
Alexander at Tuesday's House Intelligence Committee hearing, Bachmann
called Snowden a "traitor" and urged the agency to figure out how the
leaks were allowed to happen. "It seems to me that the problem here,"
Bachmann said, "is of an individual who worked within the system, who
broke laws, and who chose to declassify highly sensitive, classified
information." She wanted the NSA director to answer "how there could be a
betrayal of trust and how a traitor could do something like this to the
American people." She said she wants the focus of the investigation to
lie in "how we can prevent something like that from ever happening
again."

Bachmann asked Alexander "how damaging" Snowden's leaks
were to "the national security of the American people." She also wanted
to know if the information he leaked "has helped America's enemies."

Alexander
called the damage caused by the leaks "irreversible and significant"
and answered affirmatively that they have helped enemies of the United
States. He said they will also "hurt us and our allies."

Serbu Manufacturing was contacted by NYPD S.W.A.T. for a quote on
this rifle, but turned them down. It was explained that if it was not
legal to sell such a rifle to a New York Citizen (per the so-called
"SAFE Act,") he would not consider selling it to the cops.

But YOU can have a chance
of owning this superb .50 cal, semi-auto rifle! (Click on pictures to
see larger). The JPFO logo is to be engraved onto the side of the action
and this unique one-of-one rifle will have the serial number "JPFO 01".
A letter of provenance will accompany the gun from the manufacturer,
stating that this rifle is 1 of 1, and it indeed is the one that NYPD
could not have.

Now, an Arizona charity is running a draw to benefit JPFO, and YOU
could be the winner! Only $20 per chance! (Sorry, residents of N.Y.,
N.J., Wi., Ma., Ct., Ca., and any other state where it is not legal, are
ineligible to participate.)

ONLY 1000 tickets will be sold for this rifle. All federal, state,
and local laws will be strictly obeyed on this, and the winner must pick
up the gun from his local FFL dealer. Go to purchase your chance (or
chances) from the JPFO Store,
or call 800-869-1884, the JPFO order line. Tell your friends - the draw
is open to all and is not restricted to only one chance purchase - buy
more than one!.

The drawing is to be held on September 28th 2013 in Houston, at Gun Rights Policy Conference.

NOTE:In case we omitted to notify everyone of our last
draw results, which was for the SAIGA Raptor shotgun last December --
the lucky winner was a gentleman, David. H from Boulder City, near
Henderson Nevada. Our thanks go to all who joined in so generously.

Serbu's description of the BFG-50A, from Serbu.com:

The BFG-50A is a magazine-fed, gas-operated
.50 BMG rifle. It takes standard 10-round M-82 magazines. It has a
3-lug rotating bolt, dual plunger ejectors, sliding plate extractor,
hydraulic recoil buffer. The bolt locks into a barrel extension which is
threaded to the barrel. The bolt lug and barrel extension locking
surfaces are helical. The gas system is similar to that used on a
Ljungman AG-42 or MAS 49/56. As with our BFG-50 single-shot rifle, all
our barrels are chambered with our own reamer design which allows
surplus ammunition to be fired but gives far greater accuracy than can
be achieved with barrels using a machine gun chamber. Barrel length:
26.0", overall length: 52.5". Rifle weighs 25 lbs unloaded. The BFG-50A
uses a highly efficient 8-port "Shark Brake" muzzle brake. Barrel/barrel
extension and handguard are removable to allow different barrel and
handguard lengths and configurations.

It has become clear that the cabal
committed to preserving NC’s embarrassing and obsolete Jim Crow-era pistol permit system is being led by NC Sheriffs' Association
Executive Director, Eddie Caldwell. Not an elected Sheriff subject to the will of voters, but rather a lobbyist hired by the NCSA, he is
clearly more interested in protecting his cushy job and benefits than the rights of North Carolinians.

HB 937 in jeopardy: McCrory needs spine
injection

Worse,
Governor Pat
McCrory seems to be getting week in the knees in the face of sheriffs'
demands, and has instructed the House Republican Caucus to vote not to
concur
and to send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to remove
the measure. What is at stake, however, is not just the purchase permit
repeal,
but the entire bill, including restaurant and campus carry. Why? Because
if the bill goes to conference committee -- which will give the media
and UNC
more time to agitate, anything could be removed.

Latest round of GRNC radio spots highlight NCSA &
McCrory

Caldwell
is apparently trying to protect his nearly $290,000 per year
compensation package after being blindsided by the purchase permit
repeal
addition to HB 937 in the Senate.

The whole sordid story
is detailed in the GRNC video and radio spots just released HERE

Implications of conference
committee

GRNC
has had extensive discussions with Senate Republicans, and we are
certain they were sincere in the changes to HB 937 they made. There was
no deliberate effort to cut out Eddie Caldwell and NCSA from legislative
plans.

Currently,
there have
been no indications that the Governor intends to veto the bill, but he
did tell the Republican Caucus that he wants the bill sent to conference
committee to change the permit provision to one which "studies" the
issue. Representatives for House
leadership have indicated willingness to move "a" bill, but have not committed to what will be in it.

GRNC opposes the conference
committee for the following reasons: As you may or may not
know, once both chambers have passed different versions of a bill, it
goes
back to the first chamber for concurrence. By legislative rules, a bill
cannot be amended on concurrence, so removing the PPP provision could
only be
done by voting not to concur and then sending the bill to a conference
committee comprised of members from each chamber.

There are several problems with that, not the least of which is that once it goes there, we have absolutely
no control over what comes out. Added to that, the media will get additional time to beat on Republicans for weakening amendments.

Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively
discharged, if found guilty, because of “unlawful command influence”
derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a
Hawaii military court this week.

Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two
sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that
comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any
potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars
and Stripes.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Fulton approved the pretrial defense
motions, which used as evidence comments that Obama made about sexual
assault at a May 7 news conference.

“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said,
according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense
attorneys in the sexual assault cases.

‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more
speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look
the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got
to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court
martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”

The judge’s pretrial ruling means that if either defendant is found
guilty, whether by a jury or a military judge, they cannot receive a bad
conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. Sailors found guilty
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s Article 120, which covers
several sexual crimes including assault and rape, generally receive
punitive discharges.

Obama’s comments could have long-term effect on sex assault cases

President Barack Obama’s call last month for strict
punishments for military sexual assault — and a military judge’s ruling
that those comments from the commander in chief crossed the line — will
likely have immediate impacts on sexual assault prosecutions, military
legal experts said.

In a pretrial ruling, Fulton ruled out punitive discharges for two
defendants if convicted, citing “evidence of unlawful command influence”
by Obama when he told reporters in May, “If we find out somebody’s
engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted,
stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably
discharged. Period.”

Starting now, the unlawful command influence argument will begin
popping up in cases throughout the armed forces, military defense
attorney Greg Rinckey predicted.

“If I’m the defense counsel, I’m going to be raising this case,” he
said. “I think a defense attorney is ineffective if he doesn’t at least
raise this.”

"You can almost see him dying," Belgian
archeologist Dominique Bosquet said of the skeleton, lying on its back with
the spherical musket ball that felled the soldier still between his ribs.

"The skeleton is intact," Mr Bosquet told RTL television.

Believed to have died June 18, 1815, the remains were found under 15 inches of
soil as if the young soldier's comrades had hurriedly buried him when he
fell on the battleground.

His uniform had been eaten away but archaeologists were studying a spoon, a
coin, a leather strap and a piece of wood carved with the initials C.B. to
see whether they might help to identify the skeleton.

On 18 June 1815 in present day Belgium took place the battle of
Waterloo between the French emperor Napoleon I and the Seventh
Coalition, consisting of UK, Netherlands, Hannoverian, Nassau,
Brunswick, and Prussian forces.

Napoleon had escaped his
exile at Elba and returned to France in March 1815. The Coalition was
gathering on his northern border to invade, and his only hope was to
beat them before they could concentrate. He met them at the Battle of
Waterloo, which the British commander, the Duke of Wellington, called
"the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life."

Wellington was waiting on the best ground, but Napoleon fought a tough
battle all day long. Late in the day, and in the nick of time,
Prussian General Gebhart Leberecht ("Live-right") Bluecher caught the
French from the east. It was all over for Napoleon. The Coalition
restored the Bourbon claimant to the French throne, Louis XVIII, and
exiled Napoleon to remote St. Helena Island with a strong and
permanent guard. He died in 1821. Waterloo had been his last chance
to hold onto power, & he lost.

Another brilliant idea and they are going to lower the standards. This ought to work swimmingly well......

Military leaders are ready to begin tearing down the remaining walls
that have prevented women from holding thousands of combat and special
operations jobs near the front lines.

Under details of the plans obtained by The Associated Press, women could
start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year
later.

The military services have mapped out a schedule that also will include
reviewing and possibly changing the physical and mental standards that
men and women will have to meet in order to qualify for certain
infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the
Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Under the plans to be introduced
Tuesday, there would be one common standard for men and women for each
job.

Senators on Tuesday rejected building the 700 miles of double-tier border fencing Congress authorized just seven years ago, with a majority of the Senate saying they didn’t want to delay granting illegal immigrants legal status while the fence was being built.

The
54-39 vote to reject the fence shows the core of the immigration deal
is holding. The vote broke mostly along party lines, though five
Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio and the rest of the bill’s authors, voted against the fence, and two Democrats voted for it.

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ‘ObamaCare’?

After Chief Supreme Court Justice John
Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as
“ObamaCare,” many wondered if there could be a yet-unknown reason why
the Republican-nominated justice made the unexpected decision.

On the Glenn Beck radio program
Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was
intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in
his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare.

I am very
excited to announce that we were just able to send out the following
press release announcing the introduction of the Parental Rights
Amendment in the 113th Congress:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // June 18, 2013
// Washington, D.C. – Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) today introduced a
resolution in the U.S. House to amend the United States Constitution to
protect children and parents from governmental overreach. The proposed Parental Rights Amendment already has 40 original cosponsors. ParentalRights.org leads grassroots support for the measure.

“In a time when longstanding truths and traditions are being
tested, we must safeguard the right of parents to direct their
children’s upbringing and education,” Meadows explained.

“This
amendment to our Constitution would ensure that these decisions are made
not by faceless bureaucrats but by parents who love their children and
know them best.”

Constitutional lawyer and ParentalRights.org president Michael
Farris agrees. “Traditionally the Supreme Court has held that fit
parents make decisions that are in their child’s best interests. But
that presumption is being eroded today in our courts and in U.N.
conventions.

More and more, judges are making decisions based on
what they think is best for the child, rather than respecting the
natural right of loving parents to make that call.”

The proposed amendment would establish, in part, that “[t]he
liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of
their children is a fundamental right.” Other sections establish a high
legal standard to protect these rights and a safeguard against
international law overriding the parental role. This is the fourth
consecutive Congress in which the measure has been introduced.

Support for the Parental Rights Amendment has increased through a
number of high-profile incidents in recent months, including a
California case in which Child Protective Services removed a baby from
his parents’ custody because they sought a second medical opinion prior
to heart surgery. And more recently, a bill that would assign a
government worker to oversee every child from birth is being considered
in Scotland in response to their obligations under the United Nations’
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Parental rights supporters
believe the proposed amendment will keep such laws from ever being
adopted here.

More information on the proposed Amendment, including the full text and a current list of cosponsors, is available at ParentalRights.org. (End press release.)

Action Items

If your
Congressman is not yet on board, call or email his office and urge him
to cosponsor this important resolution. To find contact information and
to see whether he is already on board, click on your state at ParentalRights.org/States.

You might also want to tweet (on Twitter) or post to your
congressman’s Facebook page urging support for the Amendment. In
addition to making contact (as in a phone call or email), you will be
making it public as well. Others can see that you have broached this
subject with him, which often inspires a more timely response.

Also, check out our website again on Wednesday or Thursday
for a bill number. Now that the bill has been introduced, a number will
be assigned within the next 72 hours. As soon as that happens, we will
post that number on our website so that you can use it in your
correspondence with your representative.

The most frequent question asked by media and politicians since the Boston Marathon massacre is: “Why did they do it?”

The fact that this question is asked at all is an indication of the
effectiveness of the politically correct pro-Islamic propaganda
prom-ulgated by the Obama Administration.

The answer is clear: “These brothers are Muslims who received the
call from a Jihad leader somewhere in the world to carry out a command
to “Kill Infidels!” It was a command from their god. They surely felt
honored to be called upon to serve their master. That should not be
difficult to figure out, with the facts available. Yet moronic liberals
continue to say such things as: “This may be a lone act by young people
like happened at Columbine.” How ignorant!

Frank Gafney is probably the most credible current source of factual
information regarding terrorism. I met Frank when he was the top advisor
on terrorism to the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. He had no peers at that time. The Vietnam War was winding down
and President Carter had betrayed the Shah of Iran and assisted in
installing a “Holy Man” to run that country. Gafney was the leading
edge expert.

He understands Jihad and the Islamic threat, both external and
internal, to the United States. He also is outspoken about the strong
influence of Islam inside the current administration.

It has been reported that Russia notified the FBI that the older
brother was dangerous and should be monitored. The FBI reportedly
interrogated the man at the time. He went overseas for several months
and returned. Why was he not monitored?

At least one source within the intelligence community has stated on
FOX News the reason there was no follow-up or “red flag” pertaining to
the Muslim brothers before and after the bombings in Boston. It was
reported that the Obama Administration has had the intelligence files
purged of all derogatory comments pertaining to Muslims. This is an
unconfirmed report, but something Republicans in Congress should pursue.

We had no successful terrorist attacks and bombings in the United
States after 9-11 during the Bush Administration. Several have occurred
during the Obama Administration and all have seemed to slip through the
U.S. protective system and been labeled as something other than
terrorism by the Administration.

The most atrocious terrorist attack was at Ft. Hood, Texas. It had
been designated “workplace violence.” The victims have been mistreated
by their government, and the killer continues to carry the rank of
Major, U.S. Army and draw his Army salary plus doctor pay.

Relatives and acquaintances questioned by reporters say: “The
brothers were so nice. I can’t believe they would do something like
this.” “They were framed.”

Please allow me to insert a true story of an extremely nice terrorist
I knew. For six years I managed the United States Army Commissary
(grocery store) system worldwide. We operated a large store in Teheran.
The only Americans on cite were a Major and a Sergeant. The store
manager and staff were all Iranians. The store manager was one of the
most charming, courteous, likeable people I have known. He loved
everything American. The Major brought him to the States every time he
came back to the Pentagon and Ft. Lee, Virginia, for meetings, etc. He
was so popular with the officers, civilians and spouses of the
organization, that every time he came we had an elaborate dinner party
in his honor. He would do anything for you, including going to Greece or
other countries and shopping for special items for some of the wives.

When the revolution came, this charming man who had spent many nights
in the Major’s Virginia home with his family, met the Major and
Sergeant at the entrance of the store.

“You are now my enemy. This is now my store. Get what you want from
your desk and get out as quickly as possible. If I am seen with you I
will have to kill you. I will not help you escape. You are on your
own!” The two Americans spent the next two days and nights walking to
the airport and catching one of the last planes out.

Mr. nice guy was a cold-blooded killer, indoctrinated from birth,
just waiting for the order to kill. How many terrorists are living among
us and entering the country illegally daily?

Blasts campaign to have Christianity in schools, slugs cameraman with purse.

A woman who described herself as a teacher of the U.S. Constitution
has gone ballistic over a ministry effort at a gasoline station in
Florida to drum up support for its campaign to teach the ethics,
morality and responsibility of the Bible in public schools.

It happened with several folks who work with the You Can Run But You Cannot Hide
ministry, which is a nonprofit run by rock star Bradlee Dean to reach
out to America’s next generation “through principles of morality, true
freedom, and personal responsibility.”

The organization explains its mission is to “equip our next
generation with the Christian values that made America great through a
unique avenue of music and educational event forums in colleges,
schools, churches, festivals, and arenas.”

The goal is to present that message in schools.

Jake MacAulay, a spokesman for the ministry, told WND it happened at a station in Davie, Fla., just a few days ago.

“Ilse was standing behind one of her ministry’s tables while
distributing Christian literature to those visiting the gas station. She
simply said, ‘Hello,’ to the woman, but after approaching and reading
the sign on the ministry’s table that said, ‘Support Christianity in
Public Schools,

The Constitution, and Honoring Soldiers,’ the woman
viciously attacked the cause by screaming ‘shame on you for wanting
Christianity in schools,’ calling Miss Ilse a ‘bigot,’ and [she] stated
that ‘Christians are the problem.’”

On Laura Ingraham’s Tuesday radio show, outgoing Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann predicted that although Speaker of the House John Boehner has vowed to adhere to the Hastert Rule to pass immigration reform, “there’s still a loophole that the speaker might allow himself.”

Following the Hastert Rule would mean Boehner would not hold a vote
on a bill that lacks the support of a majority of the Republican caucus.
Bachmann said while Boehner will likely follow it with the version of
the bill that originates in the House, once it goes to committee to
reconcile differences between the House bill and the Senate’s version,
all bets are off.

Will Boehner Lose His Speakership Over Immigration Reform? ‘Maybe,’ He Says

John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he might lose his job as House speaker over
immigration reform, but he insisted he will not bring a bill to the
House floor that does not have majority support of both Republicans and
Democrats.
Following the Republican conference meeting on Tuesday, Boehner was
asked: “Rep. Rohrabacher said that if you bring immigration reform to
the floor without the support of the GOP conference you will lose your
job (as speaker). Do you think that’s accurate?”
“Maybe,” Boehner said after a long pause, to laughter from reporters.

"The question fairly stated is, Has the
Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into
submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn
from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the
principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and
to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have
arrived at the conclusion that no such
power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the
Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the
Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers
granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not
"necessary and proper for carrying into execution" any one of these
powers.

President
Buchanan was keenly aware that he had no constitutional means to stop a
State from withdrawing from the Union, and could command no military
force to do so. Lincoln’s use of force was enabled by Republican
governors who put armed force at his disposal and with which to wage
war. The author below cites Buchanan’s careful analysis of the powers of
the three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial,
that this “could perhaps be called the valedictory of the first seventy
years of constitutional government in the United States.” Buchanan’s
real concern with preserving of the Union resided in attempts at
arbitration, and fundamental to any understanding of Buchanan’s policy
is his clear concept of the rights of a minority group in a republican
form of government.

“[There]
is good reason to believe that President James Buchanan, as well as
many other leaders, expected to avoid open conflict. The mood of the
country had sobered at the realization that a sectional party had
elected a president. Public opinion, in general, was entirely remote
from the thought of war. Forty years of public service, in both houses
of Congress, in the cabinet, and in the courts of Europe, suggested
arbitration of the crisis to Buchanan. War he believed, “ought to be
the last desperate remedy of a despairing people, after every other
constitutional means of conciliation had been exhausted.”

Buchanan
remained firm in his conviction that “justice as well as sound policy
requires us still to seek a peaceful solution.” If the tall shadow of
the president-elect [Lincoln] lay across every discussion, then it will
be remembered that Lincoln remained, during this period, a shadow
indeed, without a voice of assurance or warning.

Buchanan’s
conciliatory stand has, until recently, been buried under the avalanche
of post-war attitudes which show him only as the inept and weak man who
stepped down for Lincoln’s administration. An able scholar. . .
Professor James G. Randall, comments succinctly, “If . . . preservation
of the Union by peaceable adjustment was possible, then unionists were
not faced with a choice of war or disunion, but rather a choice between a
Union policy of war and a Union policy in the Virginia sense of
adjustment and concession.”

Especially
suggestive to students of the period is Randall’s recent statement that
“the wars that have not happened” should be studied. Judged in the
light of “historical relativity” rather than in the concept of the
“irrepressible conflict,” Buchanan’s policy, particularly as outlined in
his December 3rd [1860] address to the nation, is subject to fresh interpretation.

[President
Buchanan’s] course was, rather, that of a man trained in a political
school of compromise, whose viewpoint was shaped by his legalistic
interpretation of the executive power as it was limited by the
Constitution. Summarizing the President’s careful exposition of this
stand, [biographer George Ticknor] Curtis concluded with him that, “To
the Executive Department it appropriately belonged to suggest the
measures of conciliation. . . But the Executive could not in the
smallest degree increase the means which existing laws had placed in his
hands.”

The
concept of “historical relativity” was at the core of the defense
offered by Buchanan’s most recent biographer, Philip Gerald Auchampaugh,
who, in 1926, openly attacked the “staff of arm-chair Generals of
History Departments who, for the most part, have taken up their pens for
the winning side”. . . . .

His brief for Buchanan’s policy is unqualified and specific:

“His
main aim, to give things a peaceful direction, and prevent the opening
of a terrible “Brother’s War,” had been accomplished midst terrific
difficulties. No stone had been left unturned to promote measures of
compromise that would be fair to all concerned. The President had also
escaped the pitfalls of the Republicans, by standing firmly on his
constitutional prerogatives, both in dealing with Congress and the
Southern States.”

Edward
Channing pointed out that Buchanan had no power, “either constitutional
or material,” to use coercive measures and suggested that, especially
in view of the small military force at his disposal, “If he had wished
to coerce the South or any individual within its boundaries, it is
difficult to see how he could do so.”

Randall
discounts the theory of the “irrepressible conflict,” recognizes the
President’s dilemma in its implications for that time, and appraises the
long-term validity of compromise and conciliation. Assessing the
terrific losses on both sides of the conflict, from war to
reconstruction, he suggests “a fuller measure of democracy would
probably have prevented the war or at least have mitigated its abuses.”
Backed by the accumulating mass of evidence, he states with conviction
that “There is little doubt that at the moment the majority of the
American people wished for conciliation to be tried.”

“Time
is a great conservative power. Let us pause at this momentous point and
afford the people, both North and South, an opportunity for
reflection,” said Buchanan on January 8, 1861. This strategy was also
within the framework of a tradition, which had, as in the case of the
[New England’s 1814] Hartford Convention, seen active resistance and
threat of secession avoided with time as a moderating force. In modern
terms, Buchanan might be said to have viewed secession as sort of a
“sit-down strike,” to be solved by arbitration rather than by force.

Facts
and events were, in truth, shaping the destiny of the plantation system
and, as Arnold Toynbee has suggested, were tending to outlaw slavery.
Already the slave system in the United States, as a labor supply, was in
competition with the ever-growing tide of immigrant labor in the
factories of New England.

Geographic
boundaries were being set quite as much by the advance of the free
farming frontier. . . . these factors suggest that Buchanan’s strategy
of time, perhaps even a delay of ten years, might have avoided the war.
He was not unaware that a precedent for the peaceful solution of the
complex problem of emancipation had been set by England in 1833.

With
war as an easy alternative, the eventful one hundred and fifty days
before [Fort] Sumter offered a fertile field for study of the technique
of arbitration, for here the uncertain balance between compromise and
conflict was maintained. . . . his conviction that the Union could not
be cemented by the blood of its citizens, it is difficult to see how
Buchanan could have chosen another course.”

Remembrance

Winners: Navy Cross Nguyen Van Kiet & MOH Thomas R. Norris This week’s Medal of Honor hero is one of a handful of Navy SEALs awarded the MOH in the Vietnam War. Norris snuck behind enemy lines with a South Vietnamese Navy petty officer rescued two downed pilots in 1972–when most of our resources had been pulled from the country. Interesting to note that later year, Norris was himself rescued by another SEAL Michael E. Thornton.More @ Medal of Honor Roll Call

Follow by Email

Counter

Core Creek Militia

==============================My sixth great grandfather, his wife, and five of his six children were killed in battle with the Tuscarora Indians at Core Creek, NC.

The Seven Blackbirds

==============================My third great grandfather was an Ensign in the Revolutionary War, and saved his unit's flag after being wounded at the Battle of Brandywine. He was also at Kingston (Kinston), Wilmington, Charleston, Two Sisters and Augusta. He was at the defeat at Brier Creek and also Bee Creek.

Requiem Aeternam -
Eternal Rest Grant unto Them
==============================
My second great grandfather was killed in action on May 3, 1863 at the Battle of Chancellorsville.
=============================
My great grandfather and great uncle knew all the men in the "Civil War Requiem" video as they were part of the 53rd NC which was the sole unit defending Fort Mahone. (Fort Mahone was named "Fort Damnation" by the Yankees) *Handpicked men of the 53rd (My great grandfather was one of these) made the final, night assault at Petersburg in an attempt to break Grant's line. This was against Fort Stedman which was a few miles to the slight northeast. They initially succeeded, but reinforcements drove them back. This video is made from photographs which were taken the day after the 53rd evacuated the lines the night before to begin the retreat to Appomattox. I have many more pictures taken by the same photographer, one of these shows a 14 year old boy and the other is the famous picture of the blond, handsome soldier with his musket.
===========================
*General Gordon promised the men a gold medal and 30 days leave if they accomplished their task and many years after the War my great grandfather wrote General Gordon, who was then governor of Georgia about this incident. They exchanged several letters which I have framed. See first link below.
===========================
*The Attack On Fort Stedman
============================
"His Colored Friends"
============================
Lee's Surrender
=============================
My Black NC Kinfolks
============================
Punished For Being Caught!

Great Grandfather Koonce

He was a drummer boy in the WBTS, survived the War only to die a few years later. He was caught in an ice storm on his way home, but instead of seeking shelter, continued on his horse until the end. His clothes had to be cut off and he died a few days later.